O R D E R:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, aggrieved by the Orders dated 04.08.2008 passed in S.R.No.240 of 2008 by the learned Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad, wherein the trial Court returned the complaint for presentation of the same before Jurisdictional Court.

02. The brief facts of the case as per record are under: Four complainants have filed a joint complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, alleging that the accused Nos.1 to 8 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 628 and 629 of the Companies Act, and under Sections 420, 406, 465, 466, 471 and 473 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. All the four complainant companies are being represented by N. Venkata Narayana who stated to have studied Postgraduation in Engineering with specialization in Power Sector and promoted M/s Power Ventures Limited., M/s Inden Power International Limited and M/s. G.V.N. Finance & Leasing Private Limited., M/s. Jewargi Power Private Limited., incorporated under the Companies Act with the Registrar of Companies, Karnataka, registered Office at Bangalore, for which accused No.1 was the Managing Director, accused No.2 is the Director, accused No.3 is the Practicing Chartered Accountant, accused No.4 is the partner of accused No.3, accused No.5 is the Company Secretary, accused No.6 and 7 are Private Limited Companies having their office at Vijayawada and Hyderabad and accused No.8 is the Executive Chairman of accused No.6 and 7 compaines.

03. Accused No.1 Managing Director was unable to run the company on account of financial issues and he was in search of investors. On being convinced by the accused No.1, the complainant has agreed either to take over or arrange to take over the company. He was inducted as one of the Directors. The complainant invested a sum of Rs.371.58 lakhs in the company. A notice was published in the main edition of Deccan Chronicle dated 15.10.2007 declaring that the complainant ceased to be a Director of M/s. Jewargi Power Private Limited.,. The complainant has not received any notice for convening a meeting for his removal. The complainant made enquiries with the Registrar of Companies, Karnataka and found that accused No.1 filed various forms for increase of shares, allotment of shares, special resolution, removal of Director, filing of balance sheet etc., and all such documents are fabricated by accused No.1 in connivance with accused No.2 to 5. All the accused jointly and severally liable under Section 628 and 629 of the Companies Act. 04. After filing private complaint in the Court, the Court has raised objections on the point of Jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction, for which the complainant replied. On going through the entire material on record, the trial Court has passed impugned Orders directing the complaint to be returned to be presented before appropriate Court.

05. Heard Sri Mahmood Ali, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1/accused No.1 and Sri V S Raju, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.3,4 and 5 as well as Sri Muthyala Muralidhar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Respondent No.9. As there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, the arguments of the petitioner are treated as (cid:145)heard(cid:146). Perused the record.

06. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the Orders dated 04.08.2008 passed in S.R.No.240 of 2008 by the learned Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad, liable to be set aside?

P O I N T:

07. The relevant portion of the Order of trial Court runs as under:

(cid:147)The learned counsel for the complainant has not explained how this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint when the company itself is registered with the Registrar of Companies, Karnataka State. It is also not explained how the complaint got jurisdiction of this Court to institute the criminal pr